Giddings maintains innocence at hearing

BOISE — Idaho state Rep. Priscilla Giddings told the House Ethics Committee on Monday she did nothing wrong by disseminating the name of an alleged sexual assault victim on her Facebook page.

In fact, the White Bird Republican went so far as to say “there was no victim” in the case that led 24 of her House colleagues to accuse her of conduct unbecoming a representative.

Giddings’ comments came during a five-hour ethics hearing Monday. The committee will continue its deliberations at 9 a.m. PDT today.

House members filed two separate ethics complaints against Giddings. Both stem from her decision to post a link in April to a Redoubt News story that included the name and a photo of a 19-year-old House intern who accused former Lewiston Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger of rape following a March dinner date.

Von Ehlinger denied any wrongdoing, but acknowledged having sex with the woman. He subsequently resigned after the Ethics Committee recommended he be censured and suspended for two years. Boise Police investigated the allegations and recently referred the case to the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office for further action.

Boise attorney Christopher McCurdy, representing the committee, referred Giddings to Article I, Section 22 of the Idaho Constitution, which says that crime victims are to be treated “with fairness, respect, dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process.”

“Do you believe your conduct … is consistent with providing privacy to Jane Doe (the House intern)?” McCurdy asked.

Giddings said Idaho code defines “victim” as someone who “suffers direct or threatened physical, financial or emotional harm as a result of the commission of a crime.”

Since no charges have been filed in the von Ehlinger case, she said, “I’ll repeat what I said before: There was no victim. There is no victim. Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution is irrelevant.”

Monday’s hearing began with Giddings getting a loud and sustained standing ovation from most of the 70 or so members of the public who crowded into the Statehouse hearing room. Many carried signs expressing support for her, while others called out “God bless you” or “Go, Priscilla.”

During her opening statement, Gidding reiterated her position that both ethics complaints are being orchestrated by House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, her rival in next year’s lieutenant governor race.

“I deny all allegations made against me,” she said. “These accusations are unfounded, partisan attacks.”

She left the room after reading her statement, saying she didn’t believe the committee could render an independent decision on the complaints. She refused to cross examine any committee witnesses, and declined to call any witnesses or present any evidence on her own behalf.

“There is nothing I can say or do that will affect the outcome of what I believe is a predetermined verdict,” Giddings said. “Therefore, I refuse to give any more time to this. I won’t be responsible for wasting additional taxpayer dollars to prolong this politically motivated attack.”

Of the two complaints against Giddings, one was filed by Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell. The second was signed by 24 House members, including 16 Republicans and eight Democrats. It accused her of conduct unbecoming for posting the Redoubt News article, and suggested she provided “evasive” and misleading testimony to the committee during an April hearing regarding von Ehlinger.

McCurdy asked five of the 24 complainants to testify Monday. They contradicted Giddings’ claims that Bedke was behind the effort, and made it clear her behavior fell well short of the high standards to which they think elected officials should adhere.

“To me, this was conduct unbecoming any member of the public, not just the Legislature,” said Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa. “You don’t out someone in the middle of a process, where there’s a sexual assault complaint.”

Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, noted she was the primary author or “chief complainant” on the second ethics complaint against Giddings. She was the only person who knew the names of all the legislators who were interested in signing it. She took that approach specifically to ensure the complaint wasn’t driven by politics.

“If they signed the complaint, it was on their own accord, not because they knew who else was on the list,” Green said. “We (signed the complaint) because it was the right thing to do.”

It wasn’t until the end of the process, she said, after a broad, bipartisan group of lawmakers had signed onto the complaint, that she approached Bedke, informed him about the complaint and asked if he wanted to sign.

In addition to claiming they were an example of “dirty politics,” Giddings said the complaints infringe on her First Amendment free speech rights and suggested they were an example of the “woke, cancel culture” that tries to silence people who say things other people don’t like.

Responding to an earlier committee subpoena, Giddings returned to the hearing room after the lunch break to answer questions. The combative tone of her initial exchanges with McCurdy characterized the entire two hours of testimony:

McCurdy: “I’ll start by asking if you believe members of the House are held to a high standard of conduct?”

Giddings: “Mr. McCurdy, I was given a subpoena to answer questions, not share my beliefs.”

McCurdy: “You were (subpoenaed) to appear as a testifying witness. You were served the subpoena?”

Giddings: “You want to define ‘served?’ ”

McCurdy: “What standard of conduct do you believe members of the House should hold themselves to?”

Giddings: “Mr. McCurdy, I was asked to testify on the facts, not on my beliefs.”

McCurdy: “Going to the second (complaint), the very last lines says, ‘There is an appearance of dishonesty while under oath,’ which was an affront to the House. What is your response to that statement?”

Giddings: “Actually the last line on that page says, ‘We would appreciate your prompt attention on this matter.’ But we can back up further on the page. I cannot speak about what other people think about appearances of honesty or dishonesty. Everybody has an opinion.”

The chairman of the committee, Rep. Sage Dixon, R-Ponderay, subsequently suggested Giddings was being evasive and not cooperating with the committee as it tried to determine the truth.

“It’s not giving the appearance of candor, and that is a concern,” Dixon said.

“Mr. Chairman, I have been very candid through this entire process,” Giddings said. “I’ll say it again, I posted a link to a news article.”

Today’s hearing will be streamed online. The link can be found at idahoptv.org/shows/idahoinsession.

Spence may be contacted at bspence@lmtribune.com or (208) 791-9168.